The new Fairfax poll

July 27th, 2011 at 8:33 am by David Farrar

have started polling again, with Research International. Stories are:

Tags: ,

28 Responses to “The new Fairfax poll”

  1. flipper (3,774 comments) says:

    Phillie, Love my hair, Annie, Andie, Helengrad (in absentia) et al, are you having a GOOD day?

    Oh dear. What a pity, never mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    So we are 17 weeks out from the election, and Labour are already aggressively campaigning.

    National is getting on with the business of governing, and I think the voters like that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,168 comments) says:

    I’d thought Goff would need to hang on until the election, but he’s really struggling and more likley to take Labour backwards rathwer than forwards.

    I think the best thing Goff could do now is to resign from leadership (he should still see out his term). Labour need to start rebuilding as soon as possible and that’s not going to happen under Goff.

    Forget Parker and Cunlife, and too soon for Little.

    I think Labour need to take a punt on a fresh new leader, don’t worry about the coming election, think of who would be a good bet to lift them in time for 2014. Any gains in November would be an interim bonus.

    If they don’t do this now it’s going to be into next year until they start rebuilding properly (if they “get it” by then!).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    Phil (6%) Goff, talk about your poisoned chalice! There is no chance he will resign before the election, simply because there is no-one in the Labour Party caucus who wants to be tarred with failure by association. Currently, the only thing keeping Phil Goff as leader are the pathetic poll ratings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Mark (1,407 comments) says:

    Labour are where National were under bill English

    Act is no better off under Brash than it was under the toxic brand of Rodney Hide.

    The Greens seen to be the big mover along with National and it would be interesting to see how much of the youth vote is being attracted to the Greens.

    Goff is clearly a week option for labour but he will be the leader through to the election only because no one else in the labour caucus want to take on National in this election.

    One can only hope that National gets a clear majority and that the influence of the minnow parties such as Maori, Act and United future are very limited in any coalition negotiations.

    The referendum will be interesting on MMP. MMP in itself is fine however I would like to see a change where no party gets any list seats unless is achieves >5% of the party vote. That would stop the ridiculous deals being done in respect of Ohariu and Epsom which has nothing to do with the democratic process and everything to do with expediency and exploitation of a flawed electoral system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Your Clarkian Slip is showing Mark.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. queenstfarmer (751 comments) says:

    I feel sorry for Labour supporters. WHY does the caucus persist with Phil Goff? Yes anything could happen, but anything could happen with a new leader, and if it doesn’t then things couldn’t get much worse. It’s like National in 2002. Labour rolled out an interesting tax policy, but Goff just can’t sell it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Inventory2 (10,162 comments) says:

    Vernon Small’s piece is the most telling, given that he is a former Labour press secretary, and views the world through crimson-tinted glasses. When even jouno’s like him are distancing themselves from Goff and Labour it’s all over Red Rover.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. smttc (710 comments) says:

    Mark, I don’t see how the deals in Ohariu and Epsom would be stopped by a 5% threshold for list seats. I doubt National are expecting ACT and United Future to get 5% of the party vote.

    Explain to us how your proposal works again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. hmmokrightitis (1,558 comments) says:

    I could be wrong, who knows, I am from time to time according to my wife, but for me this sums up why National and Key are where they are…

    “Typically the polls narrowed as the election got closer, so National was not taking anything for granted.

    On the preferred prime minister ratings, Mr Key said he thought people accepted that he would not get every decision right but that he tried do his job “as best as I possibly can”.

    We had 9 years of rabid “wreckers and haters” rhetoric, and now we have competent and humble. I think we as a nation like that. And the morons at TheStandard still dont get it, and insist that the electorate are stupid. Le sigh. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. virtualmark (1,512 comments) says:

    Well, I was going to write a comment talking about which Labour MPs would be out of a job after the election, based on Labour getting 29% of the party vote.

    Then I looked at Labour’s list, and saw the bunch of no-hopers and yes men/women stuck close to the cut-off in the mid-30′s on the list.

    And that just hammers home why Labour is in such a malaise right now. The whole party is a talent-free zone. Lots of earnest time servers who’ve “earned their stripes” as student politicians, union leaders and parliamentary staffers. But no one – yep, I’ll go so far as to say no one – that the swing voters, who I’ll wager are city-based middle-class mums and dads, would switch their vote for.

    National’s not all that better served with charismatic inspiring leaders. But they’ve got John Key and he’s single-handedly plugging that gap. And his supporting cast at least don’t dribble as badly as Labour’s mob.

    No wonder Labour are unelectable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. double d (225 comments) says:

    out of interest … there seems to be a reported consensus that economic pundits approved the Labour CGT. The reality was most economists do approve of A CGT, just not the Labour version of the CGT (punish those who dont vote Labour and exempt those who may vote Labour)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. georgebolwing (662 comments) says:

    The parallel with National in 2002 is not quite right.

    Labour’s vote at 41.26% was up 2.52%, while at 20.93%, National was down 9.57% on its 1999 showing.

    The biggest beneficaries where NZ First and United Future.

    This year, while Labour are well down, much of its support has gone to National. The Greens are up a bit, but tend to do badly in elections. NZ First and United Future are dead in the water.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. jaba (2,092 comments) says:

    I agree with virtualmark at 11:34 in that both the main parties have some pretty average MPs .. Most of the Labour ones would struggle organising a sausage sizzle. Then there are the Greens, a sort of Adams family, who are at the 8-10% mark in many polls .. how on earth does that happen??
    I sense Jimmy A may change his mind and run again!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. s.russell (1,578 comments) says:

    smttc,
    The logic behind the deal-making is to ensure that votes for minor parties are not wasted.

    Consider Epsom in 2008. By tipping the nod and wink to Epsom voters to ensure Hide won, National made sure that the 3.65% of votes that went to ACT translated into five seats – which are now backing the National-led government. If Hide had not won, National would have won 60 seats (rather than 58) in a 122 seat Parliament, Dunne would have given then 1 more, but still, a trickier set of numbers. So the deal was in National’s interest.

    If the one-seat-and-5%-not-needed clause were abolished, that 3.7% would have won no seats, and National would have far less to gain by giving Hide Epsom – only one ACT seat to help them out.

    If National was sure ACT would get 5% then no deal would be needed.

    Personally, I agree with Mark: the clause should be scrapped as a distortion. But it would be worth considering a preferential vote system within MMP for the party vote so that the 3.7%ers votes are not wasted but transferred to somewhere they will do some good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. jaba (2,092 comments) says:

    “On those figures, Labour would lose five of its sitting MPs, including three of its rising stars, Stuart Nash, Kelvin Davis and Carmel Sepuloni” .. this little says it all really .. Carmel Sepuloni is a rising star say what?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. NX (603 comments) says:

    Goff would be gone-burger if someone else in the party started to register in the ‘preferred Prime Minister’ poll.

    For example, Dr Brash showed up in the preferred PM poll before he rolled English. And John Key was polling pretty well before Dr Brash resigned.

    So not only is Goff at a remarkable low of only 6%, everyone else in the Labour party is even less popular than him!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. NX (603 comments) says:

    Who’s Camel Sepuloni….?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Chuck Bird (4,741 comments) says:

    I seem to remember a deal done in the past with Greens that turned out not to be needed as they made 5% and one done with Winston when NZF got less than 5% but he got 5 MPs because of Tauranga. Does anyone else have the same recollection?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. hmmokrightitis (1,558 comments) says:

    I think an alternate to the 5% should apply..

    It should be reset just before each election to 2% points higher than the greens achieve in the poll a month out

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. NX (603 comments) says:

    chuck wrote:

    Does anyone else have the same recollection?

    Yeah, I do.

    I don’t understand why the left-ards get so upset about these deals – ultimately the electorate gets to decide.

    Or more to the point – the left-ards only get upset when it’s their opponents making deals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Banana Llama (1,105 comments) says:

    The Greens are going to do well this election if they can keep it together.

    Also that’s horrible results for the labour party .. LOL! maybe they will go back to being a workers party rather than the bureaucrat, activist and lawyers party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. thedavincimode (6,582 comments) says:

    Gosh, 17 weeks!

    Hmmm, let me see then: 17 weeks divided by 1 blunder fuckup fiasco per fortnight = only 8 or 9 fuckups to go! (9 perhaps, counting the election itself).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. starboard (2,489 comments) says:

    forget about a bbq at kings place…theres gona be a bonfire at mallards and goof will be the guy..bye phil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. BeaB (2,074 comments) says:

    But you got to say it’s fun to watch. Poor Phil. Everything turns to crap for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    So we have the Neilson poll, TV3 poll and now the Fairfax poll, all of which are saying pretty much the same thing, and the Horizon poll, which seems to exist to give the left a sense of hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. shady (251 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/polls/5347437/Voters-reject-Harawira-hook-up

    In the graphs, it shows a large percentage of pollsters rated Selling Assets as Very Important or Important. However, I wonder if this is misleading? If I were asked if I thought Selling Assets important – I would say yes – as in partial sales allowing our citizens to have ownership and the government using the proceeds to pay down debt. Equally someone who was anti any asset sales would also answer that is was important.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Liarbores greatest problem besides being infested with gaggling socialist gits are their MPs are professional politicians. Most of these clowns are big on theory but very short on partial experience. Why would you trust these bludgers, the vast proportion having spent most of their natural lives suckling on the state tit. I don’t agree with a lot of what National has done but at least many of their MPs know what it means to earn a dollar and most importantly it’s not a dollar stolen off some else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.